The Case for De Vere

[Richard Stanley]

This documentary, Nothing is Truer Than Truth, makes what appears to be the definitive case for Edward De Vere as the real author of Shakespeare. It follows De Vere around Europe in his 26th year, his grand tour, and we meet the many specific people, events, and others' works that became inputs to the well known works.

https://www.controversyfilms.com/production/nothing-is-truer-than-truth/

The trailer:

 

[Claude Badley]

Yes, I'm happy for all that to be true...

This documentary, Nothing is Truer Than Truth makes what appears to be the definitive case for Edward De Vere as the real author of Shakespeare.

...since the knowledge attributed to Shakespeare indicates multiple authorship, Emilia Bassano as well as De Vere etc. That the actor Derek Jacobi is featured was a pleasant surprise since it is he who played Claudius in the old BBC series of that name.

When I first saw the series and Claudius hiding behind the curtain to escape the rampaging soldiers after Caligula's murder (about 1978), I immediately thought of the Hamlet story of Polonius hiding behind the curtain. However I took the question no further, failing to recognize that the usurper-king's name in Hamlet is Claudius! When I bought Shakespeare's Secret Messiah I had to prove to myself that Joe's observations were correct. Only when I made the connection between the two "curtain incidents" and the usurper king Claudius in Hamlet did I feel sure that Joe was correct, even though I was fully convinced of Caesar's Messiah otherwise. This reason here is because the Shakespeare authorship has long been a fiercely contentious issue - though Enoch Powell's support for alternative authorship is powerful evidence for it.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Seeker]

This documentary, Nothing is Truer Than Truth, makes what appears to be the definitive case for Edward De Vere as the real author of Shakespeare.

It barely touches upon it in the trailer, but does the documentary go into the assertions that Edward de Vere was the natural son of Queen Elizabeth, and also the father by her of Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton? This would certainly bolster the claim by Nicholas de Vere that his family are the true Kings of England, and, talking about elite inbreeding, this would certainly take the cake (and the crown!).

 

[Richard Stanley]

It mentions that he was likely a lover of Elizabeth's, but not discussing the other matter, which would put them in good stead via Ellis's scenario of a legacy of pharaonic incest practices.

It also makes much of that EdV was bisexual and seems to have had such a relationship with one of the Southampton's, one of the reasons for hiding his authorship, as otherwise he could have put themselves as risk.

But, how could EdV be both the son and father of Elizabeth, via another man?

 

[Seeker]

But, how could EdV be both the son and father of Elizabeth, via another man?

Ummm, please let me try to explain this: I have not read it, but "Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I" by Paul Streitz makes EdV the natural son of Elizabeth by her stepuncle and stepmother Catherine Parr's fourth husband Thomas Seymour, with EdV then secretly placed in the home of John de Vere and raised as such. Much later on, Elizabeth as Queen bore Henry Wriothesley as the result of a incestuous relationship with her son EdV, which besides the pharaonic incest practices would also give them the Jesus/Izas/Manu VI & Mary Magdalene incestuous descent from too.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I was mostly just having fun with you. For how could one man be both the son and father of one woman? Maybe the divine Son of Manu could?

Yes, I am aware of the story of young Elizabeth and Seymour, but I don't remember the show discussing this. It did mention EdV being displaced from the DeVere domicile rather early, but not dispossessed of his inheritance.

The did make the claim at one point that such men in those days would fornicate with most anything with 2 legs, addressing the rampant bisexuality.

Incidentally, I was also stuck by how easy it was for such nobility, from a 'Protestant' country, to make their Grand Tour through Catholic Europe.

 

[Seeker]

Incidentally, I was also stuck by how easy it was for such nobility, from a 'Protestant' country, to make their Grand Tour through Catholic Europe.

Well then, taking a cue from you, I shall lighten up and explain that if Streitz among others is right, then EdV could "trespass" anywhere he wanted to in Europe, because just about all of the royal houses there wanted to marry his "mother" the Virgin Queen, and besides that, Charles N. Pope on his "Domain of Man" site says that Elizabeth was the Great Queen of the World, and that her elite family was so great that they were above all religious preferences, which just may be the truth.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The following analyzes the sonnets to claim that Southhampton was not EdV's bisexual lover, rather EdV's and Elizabeth's son and heir to the throne, outmaneuvered by Robert Cecil. This has the ring of truth to me.

 

[Seeker]

The following analyzes the sonnets to claim that Southhampton was not EdV's bisexual lover, rather EdV's and Elizabeth's son and heir to the throne

Regardless of his true parentage, the descendants of Southampton include both Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana, so the final outcome made no difference to the throne of England today, but I believe Nicholas de Vere said he didn't care anyway, as he was above all that (he certainly is now, I guess). Contemporaries Sir Winston Churchill and Earl Bertrand Russell were also descendants, both controversial "kings" of their age in their respective fields of endeavor.

 

[Richard Stanley]

If this scenario is true, it does have some very interesting parallels to the Ellis scenario, that of a secret lineage appearing to foment a revolt and being thwarted. A bunch of 'rebels' get their heads wacked off and such, and a backroom deal is made to 'save the savior'. The sonnets become almost like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and after their reappearance the orthodoxy uses its weight to steer interpretations.

 

[Seeker]

If this scenario is true, it does have some very interesting parallels to the Ellis scenario

Also with Southampton being born in 1573, 1500 years after the fall of Masada in the Jewish War, and 500 years before whatever happens by 2073, two millennia after Masada. I don't know if there is some kind of pattern here, or just a coincidence, but 1973/74 witnessed the "fall" of Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon.

 

[Seeker]

If this scenario is true, it does have some very interesting parallels to the Ellis scenario

Perhaps there are also parallels to the Bushby scenario of the Jesus/Judas Thomas brothers, as Sir Francis Bacon was supposed to be a natural son of Queen Elizabeth I and a Shakespearean author, just as Edward de Vere is thought to be. If Bacon was truly the "Imperator" of the Rosicrucian Order, as the modern AMORC Rosicrucian Order believes, could de Vere and he also be patterned after the Postflavian hypothesis, Elizabethan version, as "Jesus" de Vere, with the hidden bloodline that leads to the royal families of today, and "Titus" Bacon, Emperor of the Rosicrucians/Freemasons, writing about a "New Atlantis", his possible vision for a Utopian New World in North America, with him actually playing a leading role in establishing English North American colonies that became the United States of America, the Roman Empire of today?

 

[Jerry Russell]

could de Vere and he also be patterned after the Postflavian hypothesis

Interesting, and I'm trying to unpack this. Why do you say Sir Francis Bacon was 'natural son of QE I' and part of a 'hidden bloodline'? Conventional wisdom says he's the son of Anne (Cooke) Bacon, and left no children. Are you suggesting that the truth about his parents and children has been hidden, and if so, is there any evidence? Or is this suggestion more to be taken metaphorically?

 

[Seeker]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory. I was comparing Edward de Vere to an Elizabethan "Jesus", with the hidden bloodline of Queen Elizabeth I through their conjectured son Southampton to modern royalty today, including Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana (also Vice President Dan Quayle in the first Bush administration). This bloodline also goes down to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and from the Russell Dukes of Bedford down to philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, with his grandfather John Russell,1st Earl Russell, serving as Prime Minister too. I compared Francis Bacon to an Elizabethan "Titus" because he is considered one of the unnamed Founding Fathers of the American/Roman Empire. Francis Bacon had no children that I am aware of, but apparently he was a 1st cousin, several times removed of the Virginia Harrison family, which includes a Signer of the Declaration of Independence and two Presidents, and his grandfather's descendants also married into the Virginia Randolph family to Peyton Randolph, 1st President of the Continental Congress and cousin of President Thomas Jefferson, and also into the Virginia Marshall family to John Marshall, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (also a Jefferson cousin through the Randolphs), and another descendant down to this present day is former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. From Bacon's half-sister Ann descends explorer Meriwether Lewis (cousin of George Washington through the Meriwethers, who are also second cousins of James Madison), and Marjorie Meriwether Post, owner of General Foods who built Mar-a-Lago, and mother of actress Dina Merrill, who married actor Cliff Robertson and was the half-aunt of actress Glenn Close. His uncle James Bacon was the the ancestor of Founding Father James Otis and the Wright brothers, the first cousin many times removed of the Bush Presidents, and a second cousin many times removed of FDR. Charles N. Pope on his "Domain of Man" site called Elizabeth I the Great Queen of the World, perhaps he has something there! Maybe I should pinch all of this information for my "Alternative Genealogy" thread (lol). Incidentally, and I am just the messenger here, H. Spencer Lewis, the first "Imperator" of his American founded AMORC Rosicrucian Order, claimed that he was the reincarnation of "Imperator" Francis Bacon. and that Bacon not only used Rosicrucian and Masonic symbolism in the plays of Shakespeare, but also edited the King James Bible in the same way. Bacon was supposed to have been initiated into the Order of the Knights Templar and "learnt a very special secret" while a student in Europe, and H. Spencer Lewis and Aleister Crowley were both initiates of the rites of Memphis and Mizraim. In addition, not only was Bacon suspected of being the true author of the Rosicrucian Manifestos, but he was supposed to have attended his own fake funeral in 1626, and then went to Germany to become Johannes Valentinus Andreae (another claimed author of them) until 1654, according to Manly P. Hall. If he was indeed Andreae, then he is also listed as the 17th Grand Master of the Priory of Sion! To quote "Shakespeare", or whoever, "As You Like It"!

 

[Jerry Russell]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory.

Thanks for the link.

It's easy for me to understand speculation about paternity. Sometimes even the mother isn't sure who the father is. At first glance, one might think it's not so easy to carry off a maternity hoax. But not impossible! Both the birth mother and the target host mother would need to go into hiding for the last few months of the pregnancy period. As soon as the baby popped out, it would be clandestinely transported to the target's arms. In this way, I suppose, a royal indiscretion could be covered up.

 

[Seeker]

Both the birth mother and the target host mother would need to go into hiding for the last few months of the pregnancy period. As soon as the baby popped out, it would be clandestinely transported to the target's arms. In this way, I suppose, a royal indiscretion could be covered up.

If Queen Elizabeth I was indeed the mother of Francis Bacon, the "target host mother" and father were already nearby to her, if this account is accurate: http://www.sirbacon.org/doddsublimeprince.htm

 

[Richard Stanley]

The case is made by Alexander Waugh for DeVere being the author of the sonnets, using very similar encryption techniques that Amundsen used to demonstrate Bacon and Neville's names being invoked elsewhere. The logical conclusion to me is that all three were members of the same society ... that links back to the Templars.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Here is a very nice case made for the De Vere, and briefly acknowledging a team -- even possibly including Bassano. Meyer discovered Bassano from the recent The Atlantic article, not Joe's earlier Shakespeare's Secret Messiah.

If Queen Elizabeth I was indeed the mother of Francis Bacon, the "target host mother" and father were already nearby to her, if this account is accurate: http://www.sirbacon.org/doddsublimeprince.htm

It's interesting that Elizabeth could be 'mother' to Bacon and De Vere, in the latter case either adoptive or literal (thx to Seeker's prior post). De Vere would have a daughter by Anne Cecil who was then named Elizabeth, but De Vere had been off to Italy for 17 months.

Remembering Ellis's assertion that 'Jesus', aka Izates (Isa) was both the grandson and greatgrandson of Julius Caesar and Cleo VII, there is the claim that De Vere fathered Southampton via QEI, his putative mother. Some Dark Lady indeed.

"Who's your daddy?" Hence ¿ Es de ver-dad?

In any case, Meyer discusses some reasons for why De Vere may have been slandered about various matters, e.g. being a spendthrift, the way he treated his wife, and the true nature of his relationship to Southampton.

Mentioned was the 'police state' nature of the Elizabethan era, but this was the case from the time of Henry VII, but no wonder they maintained such - with these kind of secrets. It makes me wonder if the 'slander' was intended to distract from the reality.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The following 2.5 hour presentation makes the strong case for De Vere.

It provides a possible explanation for how Anne Cecil may have 'tricked' her husband into fathering Elizabeth. Or, is this all part of a larger deception?

The closing of the presentation suggests that the descendants of De Vere were indeed in on the cover-up, making the claim that the Cecils' and the Second Creation Oxford's are to take all the heat less likely to me. Likely they were just doing their job for the larger enterprise.

The presentation discusses that De Vere had separately used both the names 'William' and 'Shakespeare earlier, thus making sense of the hyphen employed between the two names. De Vere had made theatrical use of Blackfriars before 'Shakspeare' bought it via funds bequeathed to him from De Vere's second wife.

At about 2:03 is discussed De Vere's apparent philosophy and moral theology, which is very similar to what I recently expressed to Richard E. about taking the proper actions of its own merit. This is interesting as well in that De Vere had turned to Catholicism for a period of about 6 years, but had betrayed his cousin in a Catholic plot against the Queen. Or was De Vere spying, as is claimed for his time in Europe?

In any case, the presenters invoke a distillation of Christ's message of "Go and sin no more." This was used by Jesus twice in the Bible, one instance involving adultery (this also involving the famous phrase about casting the first stone). De Vere is a prodigy, like Jesus and Josephus.

A modified painting, once held by a Stanley descendant of De Vere, was used to depict 'Shakspeare' as part of the coverup. For context, the Stanleys and the De Veres placed Henry VI Tudor on the throne.

De Vere's father had been poisoned (as had Ferdinando Stanley - blamed on either Jesuits or witches) and various linkages are made, including De Vere's thoughts back to the collapse of Troy and to the Aeneid.

De Vere is then seen simultaneously as an aristocratic man of the past and a man foreseeing the end of feudal Europe. Not mentioned in context was that Thomas Cromwell is frequently credited today with inventing the nascent, modern nation-state out of Henry VIII's kingdom, and this in the time of Machiavelli and his The Prince. Cromwell, a yeoman made noble like Cecil, was mucking around Italy at the time The Prince became known. And yes, he was related to Oliver.

 

[Seeker]

Overall, I enjoyed the Bob Meyers video, but what sent up a red flag to me was when he called William Cecil a "yeoman", either he made a slip of the tongue, or he needs to revise his material. Sir David Cecil, the noble Welsh grandfather of William, was a YEOMAN OF THE CHAMBER to King Henry VII, which is an attendant is his household, quite a different thing : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cecil_(courtier)